Friday, 13 February 2009

Shouting Fire in a Theatre



Damn' fool comparison: crying 'fire' in a crowded theatre is not an example of free speech in any sense or context. And denying entrance to Geert Wilders, by a government that is kowtowing to the hardline Islamic vote (in the shape of Lord Ahmed and his various guests, including Mahmoud Abu Rideh and Israel Shamir) is the clearest example of totalitarianism that we have yet.

Earthlet Nigel said...

He voiced quite eloquently what this film shows, and that is the result of their actions borne out of hate for this, a western society.

These actions undeniably happened, the hatred is daily being promulgated in the mosques, and homes of many moslems, overtly, covertly, subtley or crassly.

Moderate moslems are unlikely to speak out, simply out of fear from within their own community, or quite likely they wish they had the testicular motivation to act the same way.

A line has to be drawn.

Anti-semitism is on the rise, yet apart from being told it is happening we are seeing no action to counter it. Who is perpetrating the attacks?


You're absolutely right - the film isn't an incitement to hatred but an expose of the way in which the Qu'ran can be manipulated by the unscrupulous in order to fulfil their own rotten agendas (much as the Hebrew Bible was used, for example, to discriminate against blacks by claiming that they were from the Land of Nod). And indeed anti-semitism is ever more rife, yet is somehow justified by the recent Israel/Hamas war; people are prepared to march for a country that they've never visited lacking basic comprehension about the situation. Paradoxically they shun, for example, Iran which espouses similar hatred for the nation state of Israel, but which has a Jewish population of 25,000; they can't seem to distinguish between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. Is this down to a basic lack of education - in fundamental logic? Or an anodyne government which will not permit anyone to say anything about any situation? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes: those who hold out a fat bankroll with one hand and sharia law with the other?

Gareth said...

If the theatre is on fire it is natural to shout about it. It is natural to be concerned. It is natural for some to volunteer to tackle it while the rest leave in an orderly fashion.

The Righteous are so afraid of anyone raising the alarm* that we will all end up burning. They cannot grasp the distinction between raising the alarm and causing a panic.

* Though alarm itself is fine for global warming, alcy Ada, non payment of taxes, speeding, the Police state, nannyism etc.

AngryDave said...

Geert Wilder has done nothing wrong, only pointed out the hatred of others and the willingness of the righteous to let it happen.
The fact that he is being treated like a criminal by the UK government says it all really.

Dick Puddlecote said...

Someone's been nicking your ideas OH.

CCTV, Pubs and V for Vendetta

Fancy a Guardian-publicised night out in Islington?

an ex-apprentice said...

No-one has denied the truth of what Fitna shows. Nor can they - the terrorist atrocities occurred and the Koranic verses exist and are used to justify terrorism and much else.

It follows that truth is no longer relevant or constitutes a defence.

The accusations made against Wilders by Milliwat, Ahmed and others are of causing offence and inciting hatred. Both are subjective, neither can be tested or proved to exist, or if they do - to what extent; neither can be challenged, whether in a court or elsewhere.

It is for precisely these reasons that these fatuous so-called "rights" have never existed prior to the moronic intervention of the ECHR.

I profess openly that I hate Gordon Brown with an intensity and degree of passion that I find embarrassing. Am I to be incarcerated? Or is Brown to be stopped from "governing" to prevent the spread of disharmony in the community?

The worst aspect of this is not about freedom of speech. It is the imposition of Sharia. Criticism of Islam is forbidden to muslims. Accusations by Lord Ahmed, and his co-religionists, of hate-crimes and incitement to violence are merely their exercise of the codewords for criticism by which they seek to justify their attempts to prevent it. And we, by a combination of the intervention of the ECHR and the unbelievably low standard of the moronic cunts we have the misfortune to be governed by, accede to this.

Sharia rules. We are all moslem now.

Anonymous said...

'Incitement' is just a catch all phrase. Those who use it are those who know that under any sane state of being, they would be on the receiving end of any such violent acts as per a proper functioning society. In fact I will go further and actually state the case that the normal indiginenos population of not only this Island, but Europe in general, don't need to quote any 'incitment to..' argument as we positively encourage such elements to threaten us as we are more than willing to meet such bullies and aggressors head on, but of course those who constantly bleat 'incitement to...' also make sure that they are the lawyer class and thus use the law THEIR law.

Ratings and Recommendations by outbrain


Related Posts with Thumbnails